Venezuelans Brace for Rolling Blackouts as Power Output Falters

[phantom power]

Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelans will face rolling blackouts for the next five months starting today as the worst drought in 50 years threatens to shut the nation’s biggest hydroelectric plant and collapse the power grid.

The government will cut electricity for four hours every other day across the country after previous measures failed to slow the drop in water levels behind the Guri hydroelectric plant, which supplies 73 percent of Venezuela’s power, Electricity Minister Angel Rodriguez said yesterday on state television.

The blackouts are another economic blow after President Hugo Chavez devalued the nation’s currency by as much as 50 percent on Jan. 8 as he struggled with an outflow of dollars and growing budget deficit. The economic drag caused by the shortage, combined with a likely surge in inflation from the devaluation, may keep Venezuela mired in recession and erode Chavez’s popularity in the run up to legislative elections in September.

“The drought has exposed what was already a seriously overstretched grid and years of underinvestment,” said Patrick Esteruelas, a New York-based analyst at Eurasia Group. “The government is going to try to soften the blow by spending very aggressively from now until voters go to the polls.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aaA5X4B0oTyU

[TxRider]

1. How long does Chavez have left?

Before the people toss the idiot out?

And how far will they have to go to do it?

[GliderGuider]

2. I'm curious

What would you have done differently?

[enid602]

3. foreign aid

Well, for starters I think I would have refrained from spending US$89 BILLION on overseas aid in 2008, and maybe have spent some of the money on the power grid. BTW, the record ´08 Venezuela foreign aid spending was down to $2 BILLION in ´09, as Venezuela ran out of money.

[GliderGuider]

4. The problem doesn't seem to be the grid, though.

The problem seems to be a drought. How would reducing foreign aid spending have helped that?

[CynicalObserver]

5. One assumes the money in question would have been available

to spend on upgrading the power infrastructure, including building plants that aren't hydro dependent.

I guess some people don't understand that money is a finite commodity and how you spend it decides what choices you might have later.

[GliderGuider]

6. So, burn oil?

Rather than sell it, that is.

[CynicalObserver]

18. I think you are trolling, since there are a number of electrical generation plant models vz

might have decided to investigate rather than go with the foreign aid and brownout model.

[Nihil]

43. I think *someone* is trolling ...

... but GliderGuider isn't the one who has put over 10% of his total posts
on this single thread ... it's amazing how the anti-Chavez threads bring
"certain types" out of the woodwork (and, occasionally, a "sleeper" out
of hibernation).

:think:

[CynicalObserver]

44. More interesting is the prevalance of opinion which

doesn't hold chavez in the least bit responsible for his policies of the past 11 years, despite ever-increasing executive powers, expropriations of private businesses, decrease in political freedom and ownership (private) of the venezuelan media, etc. The energy issue has long been documented there. Investing in infrastructure, rather than giving venezuelan crude products to a large number of countries (starting with Cuba) free or with only political strings attached has consequences, and he certainly should be held accountable.

I don't live that far from VZ, and would certain be impacted far more than the average DU poster if there is a military conflict in northern south america beyond what FARC has already done to Panama (maybe posters here support their use of Darien for operations, killing policemen, etc.).

War is hell, and anyone with half a brain who knows their history (especially 20th century europe) can figure out which south american leader is most likely to provoke a military conflict between 2 nations. There isn't a 2nd runner-up even close. Some folks think he is arming VZ as a deterrent against the US, which only shows their total ignorance of military matters. Nothing he has would deter US military capability if it were ever used, which is very unlikely. Anyone capable of some critical thinking can see the country he is most likely arming up against is Colombia.

[enid602]

7. investment

Just seems that the money would have been better spent on what was described in the article as woefully underfunded energy investment. Doesn´t it seem a bit odd to you that a country of only 25 million people (and one that has huge oil reserves) would have such a critical and ongoing blackout problem?

[GliderGuider]

8. Every country makes investment choices

based on the situation at the moment and into the foreseeable future. "Use hydro, sell oil" probably looked like a smarter bet when there was no foreseeable threat to the hydro supplies and oil was bouncing up over $100 a barrel.

Now, of course, we get to put on ideological spectacles and beat up Chavez with our newly acquired 20:20 hindsight.

[enid602]

9. Chavez

I remember at the time that many people questioned whether or not Chavez should have offered heating oil to the elderly and poor in New England, and wondered whether or not the money could have better been spent in Venezuela. Turns out it could have.

[GliderGuider]

11. The heating oil offer was a drop in the bucket.

Certainly compared to his military spending. OTOH, if I was an ideological adversary of the USA, I might want some Russian arms too.

I suspect that in the end Chavez started to see himself as a player, and ran into the all-too-human problem of believing what he wanted to believe rather than what his eyes were telling him. Ideology does funny things to people, as the recent 8-year stint in Washington shows.

I have the feeling that criticisms of Chavez get a little personal for some, perhaps because of his tone of voice on the world stage.

[TxRider]

12. Except there was a forseeable threat

This is not the first drought, not the first time levels behind the dam got low.

In fact Chavez had a well detailed plan to address future requirements laid in his lap when he was elected. A plan that warned of what would happen if it wasn't done.

BTW the oil infrastructure is crumbling as well.

Ohh and water rationing is starting as well.

Chavez has been quite bad at dealing with his infrastructure, and foreign aid, domestic subsidies and militarization has run the countries monetary system dry.

It's only going to get worse as you can't run factories, produce oil, or refine metals with no power or water.

[GliderGuider]

13. Fair enough.

I admit to having a soft spot for gadflies.

I hope that you are as objectively critical if similar problems begin to hit closer to home. No political leader/system is immune from believing their own press.

[TxRider]

16. I try to always be objective

Chavez has been a disaster for his country.

Worse than the disaster he replaced.

I don't believe that can be said of the U.S., but we will see.

As or similar problems, they are hitting out west as far as water and power go. Water is in short supply as power has been. Though we seem to be investing in new power production and delivery.

We use local surface water here, and use restrictions have been in place for about a decade now. More investment will not however make it rain more.

[CynicalObserver]

21. Why not address the points in post 12 rather than waxing ideologic and evasive? ntxt

sorry meant for this to be to post 13.

[CynicalObserver]

20. At some point before it threatens him, I fully expect him to provoke a war with

Colombia. He is arming with them in mind, not the US, unlike what the person above seems to think. (does anyone think some mig's , sam's, and kalashnikovs will have any impact on the US?)

Whatever your ideological bias, there has not been a war in south america in decades. The ones I can recall are peru/ecuador, chile/arg., chile/bolivia (further back), + the falklands invasion (arg., UK), but I fully believe Chavez is going to start one.

[CynicalObserver]

19. Are you sure the ministry in charge of electrical generation had not

forseen such a possibility and reported it?

[TxRider]

10. For a start

I probably wouldn't have nationalized all the power plants, ensuring there would be zero private investment in them, and would have granted permits to build more.

If I did nationalize them I would have invested in adding capacity in power stations and grid infrastructure.

Not neglected things so badly that three out of the four turbines at the the largest power plant are inoperable.

Rather than the silliness of buying scads of Russian military gear and the short sighted militarization and threats of war against his neighbors.

I probably would not have locked electricity rates low, and subsidized poor people so they use more either. Especially if I was going to impose policies to keep companies out from building infrastructure, and ignore maintenance of plants and building of new power plants and grid.

Their currency has now been devalued by 50% I understand, Chavez has dug a rather deep hole for himself, that he will now try to dig out of with deficit spending, digging the hole even deeper and wider.

In the end the why matters little. When lights are shut off for hours a day industry cannot survive, and voters will lay blame on whoever is in charge. Chavez is losing popularity very quickly now, will he leave without bloodshed?

[The Croquist]

15. Three out of four turbines at the the largest power plant are inoperable?

Do you have support for that? That seems incredible to me and if so I would love to know why. If that is true the problem wouldn't be a lack of water but a lack of generators and incompetence.

[TxRider]

17. Largest thermoelectric power plant.

Should have noted that.

The infrastructure has not been maintained or invested in, though Chavez has announced some now. Too late it would seem.

They do have another hydro project in the works, originally slated to go online in 2010, but it has been suffering massive delays.

[CynicalObserver]

23. How do you survive on chavez threads? There isn't much

rational discourse on economics, government-management of industry, etc., in terms of actual results or consequences normally.

I understand full well why populations like VZ elect a chavez. It doesn't mean that the long-term consequences of his unlimited presidencies aren't going to be worse than things were prior to his elections.

[Nederland]

29. Not created a regime based upon transferring wealth?

The Chavez regime has always been based upon maintaining power by transferring wealth to people that support Chavez. Now that the oil money is starting to dry up, so is his ability to maintain power. The fact that so many people on DU support this dictator is an embarassment.

[NNadir]

34. It has almost nothing to do with Chavez. It has to do with the sustainability of hydroelectricity

in a time of uncontrolled climate change.

This is going to happen in a lot of places like say, Switzerland, countries run by sane people, more or less.

[GliderGuider]

35. Yes, that was essentially my point.

Chavez' mismanagement may have exacerbated Venezuela's situation, but the underlying problem is unstable climate leading to droughts and disappearing glaciers.

So, hydro will become more erratic, fossil fuels are the devil's bargain, nuclear power has public perception and economics working against it, and we're left with coulds and shoulds.

Between Peak Oil, Climate Change, economic collapse and the unwillingness of national gooberments to grasp any of these nettles, it's hard to see where the BAU is going to come from.

[kristopher]

36. Nuclear is also built predicated on water temperature, level and supply.

Look at what happened in France this past summer.

http://www.green-blog.org/2009/07/25/france-must-shut-down-nuclear-plants-due-to-heatwaves/

The Times Online are reporting that France have been forced to close down a third of its nuclear power stations this summer due to heatwaves:

“France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action. With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity. Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.”

[GliderGuider]

37. Yes.

Nukes on rivers will be operationally vulnerable like hydro, but the main impediments to new construction are public sentiment and cost.

[kristopher]

38. And the fact that nuclear stacks up poorly against the alternatives...

has a hell of a lot to do with public sentiment.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

39. No, I'd say public sentiment is mostly driven by radiation fears

rationalized by cost-overrun fears. The public doesn't read Jacobson.

[kristopher]

41. They follow the advice of people who do the same reseach - Gore for instance.

Jacobson isn't the only person to have run through that same basic analysis - it is a fundamental piece of work, not something esoteric or one off.

I think your term says loads; "radiation fears rationalized by cost-overrun fears" is more of a dismissal of the legitimate concerns that people have than any type of statement about . People may not quantify risks as is commonly done in the nuclear industry, but I'd say their method has a validity of its own. They KNOW there are alternatives and they KNOW the alternatives have far fewer risks associated with them. It really doesn't require unreasoned fear to oppose nuclear power, just the expectation that human technology is always fallible and the consequences of failure for nuclear are extreme.

That needs no "rationalization" by costs or any thing else. Those very high cost, inadequate supply chain and lack of trained personnel are just some of the OTHER issues that contribute to nuclear energy's poor comparative standing.

[NNadir]

40. There are zero "renewables will save us" advocates who know the capacity utilization of nuclear

plants in France, or for that matter anywhere else.

Most nuclear plants worldwide run at close to or better than 90% of rated power, whereas there are zero solar plants that ever reach their rated power, and none that have reliability (capacity utilization of even 30%).

The same losers carry on endlessly about how wonderful wind and solar are, even though wind plants woud need to increase their pathetic reliability by a factor of more than 3 to run as reliably as nuclear plants, and wind by a factor of 9.

Today, January, 13th, 2010, the $700,000 "52 kw" solar toxic nightmare at MOCA in North Adams Massachusetts produced just 39 kWh of energy. Since the sun is now down and the piecd of consumer garbage isn't going to anything now, we may conclude that, since today, like every other day, contains 86,400 seconds, and 39 kWh is still 1.4 X 10⁸J, just like it has always been and always been, the output of the $700,000 system is just 1600 watts as average continuous power, not counting the waste that would have been involved in the imaginary batteries, if they existed, which they don't.

A lawnmower produces more power than that (since 1 horsepower still, as it always has, equals roughly 746 watts).

The capacity utilization of the "52 kW" solar plant today? 3%. Useless.

How do I know these details? Because the MOCA system posts its data "live," as I never tire of pointing out: http://www.sunviewer.net/portals/MoCA/

Have all the "renewables will save us" gas greenwashers in Massachusetts been living without electricity today just because the fucking solar toy isn't working reliably?

Of course not. They're right here on the internet hawking their selective attention like it fucking matters and posturing with denial.

Solar and wind fail miserably on the same criteria, reliability, that the "renewables will save us" gas greenwasher apply only to nuclear.

So called "renewable energy" will never be as clean, as safe, as reliable or as inexpensive as nuclear power.

[kristopher]

42. .

The use of capacity factor as a measure of the "best technology" is a red herring designed to deflect attention from a wide array of very important considerations that score poorly for centralized thermal generation. Large scale centralized thermal generation refers to systems that burn fuel to heat water to produce steam to run a generator. Coal nuclear and natural gas all have the potential for high capacity factors.

Since wind and solar both have significantly lower capacity factors, this is the favorite point of attack by those supporting Republican energy plans.


What that attack ignores is that actual capacity factor a system operates under is as more a function of the designed system of the grid than an unchangeable characteristic of how a grid must be operated.

It is entirely possible to design and operate a grid with a combination of technologies ALL having low operational capacity factors.


Here is a link to a Scientific American article that demonstrates how this can be accomplished.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

[sofa king]

14. I wonder if V's electrical grid has improved since I last saw it.

I visited Caracas in the mid-1980s, and man was it a mess. The income disparity between rich and poor was probably just as wide as that in the United States, but the poor had much less than our impoverished have, and the extremely wealthy lived in homes that would be considered fairly modest in, say, Southern California.

So, each poor neighborhood in Caracas simply stole electricity from the lines going to the rich neighborhoods, and each pole along the main power lines had dozens of naked, totally illegal power lines snaking off of it. They also had to steal their water, improvised their own sewage systems (designed to roll the shit downhill into the wealthy 'hoods) and neighborhoods would collectively refuse to pay their rent one month a year so that they could afford to buy a flatbed truck and maintain it, so that people in the neighborhood could get to work and back. I'd guess that each city block generated a half dozen jobs for illegal plumbers, electricians, and drivers.

Building inspectors worked for bribes, too, with the result that some of the shantytowns would build too high up the mountainsides, then collapse, taking out dozens of homes at a time and probably dragging down the power lines with them.

If you've never seen a corrupt capitalist city teetering on the brink of revolution, I highly recommend it (maybe Detroit or Flint these days?). The rampant civil disobedience was actually a desperate attempt at survival in the face of criminal exploitation.

[enid602]

22. Venezuela

Interesting observations. But what is it with Venezuela? When they have a conservative government, it is so corrupt, so right-wing that they´re always on the brink of revolution, causing the wealthy to export their savings, and blocking foreign investment. When the left is in charge, the same thing happens. This is an oil-rich country with a very small population; where are the Bachillets, the Lulas or the Tabares?

[CynicalObserver]

24. Chavez is a socialist, obviously (he says so, if some disagree)

but the traditional oligarchic governments in these countries aren't so much 'conservative' as simply corrupt and self-interested. The get themselves and their associates rich, and don't do much at all for the very poor large underclass. This isn't conservative so much as oligarchy or nearly plutocracy. You might have 4 or more major parties, but they represent local (and foreign) economic interests more than anything. their goal is control government, its spending, and the various kickbacks that are assumed to be part of that.

In my experience in modern representative latin politics, I am not sure I have run into a 'conservative' movement like you have in the US, usually because people aren't reacting to greater and greater inroads government makes into their pocketbooks and other aspects of their lives. Latin governments tend to just want some money and leave you alone (benign neglect), so the catalyst for social conservatism needs a chavez to wake it up, locally.

[GliderGuider]

27. "the traditional oligarchic governments in these countries..."

aren't so much 'conservative' as simply corrupt and self-interested. The get themselves and their associates rich, and don't do much at all for the very poor large underclass. This isn't conservative so much as oligarchy or nearly plutocracy. You might have 4 or more major parties, but they represent local (and foreign) economic interests more than anything. their goal is control government, its spending, and the various kickbacks that are assumed to be part of that.

I got a sudden flash of recognition when I read that, but it evaporated before I could pin it down. Can anyone help me out?

[CynicalObserver]

28. much of recorded western history?

It isn't like this is anything new.

[TxRider]

30. Power corrupts

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[GliderGuider]

31. You know, that would make a good saying...

And yes, that's pretty much what it is. To the evolved neuropsychology of the hairless ape, the dopamine released by the exercise of power tends to be about as addictive as crack. It doesn't matter what form the power comes in - monarch, president, CEO or apparatchik - they all respond the same way. It really doesn't matter what form the economy takes either, the eventual outcome in terms of hierarchy and power is the same.

[TxRider]

32. I don't believe so

"It doesn't matter what form the power comes in - monarch, president, CEO or apparatchik - they all respond the same way. It really doesn't matter what form the economy takes either, the eventual outcome in terms of hierarchy and power is the same."

The eventual outcome can be quite different depending on the societal structure and how those in power or control can be unseated.

By law, or by election, or by market forces, all are possible in our system. I think of them as pressure vents of a sort.

None are possible in systems like say Cuba or China. The only means of changing power is revolution, there is no pressure vent.

In our system those pressure vents if closed leave us in the same situation. If power can gain control and directly dictate the judges, the elections, and the market, we're toast.

Venezuela was already in that position, and is still is just with a different man in charge, still with no way to really remove him without revolution it seems.

Cuba has been a rather singular exception IMO.

[GliderGuider]

33. The outcome depends on social structure. The instinct doesn't.

That's why democratic socialist countries like those in Scandinavia work so well. The governments can be changed without violence, there is still incentive to work, but the degree of regulation seems to be just enough to keep the more rapacious instincts of the power-hungry in check. That situation requires a social agreement at some level that the rules are important, and that the collective has some degree of value (but not supreme value). Balance in all things and a willingness to abide by the rules so that all may prosper. It's a rare combination in this world.

The more power is consolidated the less likely it is that excesses will be avoided. That's why centrally planned economies have traditionally been vulnerable to hierarchic abuse, because consolidation of power is intrinsic to the system. Systems like American "free" market capitalism are vulnerable too, but for a different reason. The veneration of the individual makes it difficult to establish a legislative framework that recognizes the value of the collective, so power is permitted to consolidate unchecked.

Just as a power shift in a centrally planned society is difficult to impossible without revolution, I think America is now in the same boat. The one thing that makes revolution less likely in the USA is the fallout from the Powell Memo of 1971: corporations have been able to shape the mindset of the citizens such that they will act against their own best interests and in the interests of corporations while thinking this is the natural order of the universe.

[TxRider]

25. Who knows

Probably dead.

Chavez has blown a good opportunity though, I doubt he can pull his arse out of the fire now.

The question is how far will he go to keep himself in power, how much damage will he do?

And who will replace him?

[GliderGuider]

26. I wonder if we're just seeing a cartoon example

of what has happened in so many other countries -- the new parcel of rogues always seems oddly similar to the last parcel of rogues, once you get past their vocabulary.

I certainly feel that way about the leaders of my own country, Canada, and I'm starting to feel that way about our gracious southern neighbour.

Something about power corrupting...